ParanoiA

Oh come on John. Do I really have to point out that police are only minutes away from the dead bodies...not from stopping the crime? The government can't protect you during a crime. They can only bring justice. MOST of the time, they're only damage control. That's a fact of life. It's not their fault, they can't be everywhere at every moment.

But that's not consistent. Flip of the coin in terms of jury selection could get my innocence or guilt. That's why we have the right to kill when they enter our homes. Most people don't want to. But they have the right - within reason. Like Sisyphus said, you can't chain them to the wall and torture them for hours. At the same time, giving an intruder the consideration of clearly establishing his intent is MORE consideration than he is giving. That gets people killed. People that didn't deserve it in the least. At the end of the day, it's a toss up as to what their intentions are. Who deserves more consideration? The home owner, or the intruder? To me, the home owner deserves ultimate consideration. Even if it's just a coked up teenager, he's still guilty of something (intrusion) - the homeowner is guilty of nothing. So, at that point, the credibility of the intruder is nil, so why does the non-guilty homeowner have to risk his life - even further - for a situation he isn't even responsible for creating?

No it doesn't. You haven't given any other information. Was it dark? Were they carrying his daughter out the front door? Did they already rape his wife? Were they going back to the truck to get their gasoline and torch? Why is he supposed to be an expert on home defense? Did he have a sign out front that said "please break in my house"? Why is it so hard to understand that people don't have to be sensible to have the right to live? Maybe I'm stupid. Ok, then I don't put myself in any situation where my stupidity would hurt someone. But what if someone makes me have to make a decision where my stupidity results in unreasonable action? Seems obvious to me. If you're a criminal and you break in and scare people to death, you are responsible for their fear. You are responsible for making a "non expert" to have to make the decision of an "expert". And if they don't perform to your ideas of "reasonable", then I guess it wasn't "reasonable" to break in, now was it?

No, we just realized that it's a waste of breath with folks who don't see the obvious common sense in that. If you don't get that, than all logic is apparently useless in convincing you...

But, I shouldn't be required to know what reasonable is, in that situation. I don't do police work, because I don't know what reasonable force is, so, if I apply and use excessive force, then I should be punished. But I didn't ask someone to break in my house. Knowing exactly how to handle that situation should not be a requirement, legally. Just like I'm not required to know how to give CPR. I didn't cause the situation, and I'm not required to be an expert in any situation someone causes me to be a part of.

Particularly since 'women with babies' are more than likely single women with babies given the irresponsibility of the new american male.

That sounds so wrong to me. If I find someone in my house, I might already be dead or fatally wounded before I know whether or not they have a gun or knife or what their intent is. I'm somewhat shocked at the idea that any government would support that kind of thinking. I think part of the thought process involved with our attitude of home defense comes from the idea that when someone breaks into my home, they have created the situation - not me. They have forced me into a decision making moment - without any willful participation on my part - so I shouldn't be held accountable for making a disagreeable decison to the state or other individuals. In fact, in some cases I could actually hurt someone else by accident in the process of defense, and the intruder can be procecuted as if he did it - precisely because he is responsible for the incident. It's unfair, in my view, to expect that of people who did not create the situation - but are victim to it. If you're a police officer, then one can argue that you put yourself into that position - that you are qualified for that position - so your decisions should have consequences. But to have your house broken into like that, is completely without your participation in the wildest of imaginations. Anyway, I feel for you. Maybe they'll change their mind on this one someday?

Well, you make some good points there. True, I guess we do impact everyone on a basic level in the first place. Maybe this fits with your "Emotional Aversions" thread. I guess I have an emotional aversion to being "disregarded" in terms of personal freedoms. I think there is at least a practical limit, even if I can't necessarily define it at the moment. There comes a point when you have to ask, "why does every solution involve creating an extra step for everyone?"

Screw their oil. Why not build something and contribute to the human race like the rest of us, instead of selling something already in the ground to make a living - and then turn around and kill us for it? If we only get 30% of our oil from there, and we're already on a sprint for alternative fuels, why empower them by buying their oil? I'd love to look at them say, "sorry, we're not interested". The "we" is our private sector that has no patriotism. They sell out our jobs overseas, they sell out any chance of moral high ground - they just get real patriotic when they're trying to get my kid to sign up to die for them. That will continue to happen until we, the people, hold them accountable. And so far, we're all too wrapped up in American Idol and our nifty camera phones to give a shit how it's obtained. I don't feel bad for doing business and outperforming others. But if you can't do business with someone - and clearly that's the case in the middle east - then we shouldn't. They have no business growing and prospering under their current mindset. We're empowering this unhealthy attitude and approach to trade by going along with it. This is like rewarding your child for bad behavior, with a cookie. The fact we keep doing business with them - status quo - only validates their behavior.

I do support Afghanistan and Gulf War actions in the context of accepting that we are not isolationist. Even as an isolationist, I still support Afghanistan. But my ideas about isolationism came directly from 9/11 and its aftermath. Admittedly, it's more of a temper tantrum on my part. I get so fed up with the one way finger pointing. People judging America out of context. I was watching a program last night on North Korea. They went over the concentration camps that have been up and running for decades. The fear instilled in those people is creepy. Over and over again, they all said the same thing "Our dear leader", "Our great general" - straight up "god" worship. The humanitarian issues their are ridiculously bad. But, we're hated. Gitmo is a bigger deal to people than what is going on in N. Korea. I know it's been an issue in the past, and I'm sure it's brought up from time to time - but Gitmo is portrayed as the same thing. Folks, it's not even close. Where's all the outrage on N. Korea? China? Terrorists actually kill in the name of god. No dots to connect. No intellectual explanation to connect everything together - they straight up, no bones about it, kill and rule for god. Proudly. But our own people criticize us about religion and war - having to stretch imaginations and make an intellectual case to support it, and take up for those who actually DO kill for god. It blows my mind. How can people be so knit picky about our "christian" heritage that barely makes a dent in our laws in the least - but take sides with those who use god to rule and manipulate innocent people (poisoning the minds of little kids) to kill for them? I really don't get it. So, I would really like to see my country take the hint and grant them their wish. They bitched when we weren't involved. They bitch when we are involved - and step it up to hate and add dozens of countries to the list. Hell, let's just go back to letting them bitch - only. What's the point? They just concentrate on the bad, and don't give any recognition for the good. They're so smart. Let them deal with it. We're so stupid, so why try? Like I said...a temper tantrum.

Yes, I think we do. And I do believe it effects the perception. If you've never owned one, you see no need. You are used to the understanding you have no power over a criminal that has one. There is more fear in owning one since the media does not report when guns end crimes. There are countless examples of citizens using their guns to protect themselves successfully. It is never reported. I don't know why. It is truly strange. I believe someone pointed this out in the last school shooting before VT. They media did NOT report that a faculty member retrieved his gun from his car and went back into the school and ended the rampage. This has always blown my mind. I always thought people made this up about the media. But it really is true. So weird. Why leave that detail out of the story? Of all things. I've never read a story about a citizen using a gun successfully in self defense by the main corporate media. I've had to read about it elsewhere - and there's a lot of it going on. Of course, this feeds the idea that the media is biased. Hard to defend otherwise. Anyway, I was raised with guns in the house. I was taught to respect them and how to use them properly. No overcompensation of fear. Just a respect and understanding, like any power tool you might have in your garage. Ask my kids, if they find a gun, if it's loaded. Then ask them what they're supposed to do if they find a gun. Then ask them what they're supposed to do if one of their friends tries to play with one. Fear just feeds ignorance. Respect feeds knowledge in this case.

I've always had a similar thought process. The fact we have "parties" creates the competitive us versus them psychology. Makes us completely forget the whole point in governing and shifts our focus and energy on beating the "other side". But then, I also wonder about the sense in not having parties. You'll still end up having parties because it will just be tracked and labeled in a different way. I don't know that there is a practical way to avoid that.

I don't know about that particular example, but I've never agreed with the idea of impacting the masses to control a minority - on really anything. Example: Movie theatre has problems with people sneaking in so...they require folks who purchased tickets to keep them on their direct person and if they're stopped they must show this proof or be kicked out. I think that's wrong. They've impacted everyone for the sake of a small minority of trouble makers. So, my son runs off to the restroom during the movie and gets kicked out because we have the tickets - forgot to give him his stub to keep. That's wrong, in my opinion. People sneaking in is their problem - not mine. Why do I, the law adiding patron, have to go to extra trouble for something I have nothing to do with? Yes, I see the practicality in the rule. I see the attraction it its simplicity. "Hey, we don't have to do anything. We'll just make our customers take an extra step and that will solve our problem." It's done without even thinking. And most patrons are understanding about it too - makes me sick (probably because they have jobs where they make the same kind of all impacting "simple" fixes to problems..) I just have never liked that kind of thinking. It's lazy and thoughtless and quite inconsiderate of others. I don't have any issues with that.

I'm not a scientist. Although I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night... Honestly, I don't know why they even let me post here. But, this forum consists of people who think and use logic and support their views. That's hard to find in any political-only forum. All I ever got was people posting propaganda-esque arguments with a complete absence of logic and respect. Anyway, I'm sure you're more studied in these political systems than I. The one thing that jumps out at me though is that the capitalist system puts the power in the hands of the consumer. The american consumer can demand and influence business practice. They're not doing it right now - at all. I know you see capitalism as a runaway train, but the truth is it's just a matter of time before we come around. It's happening already with the global warming debate firing people up. But communism, socialism - whatever "ism" you choose is still wasteful. It's just a shift in power. Instead of power residing in the people, you put it in the ruler or what have you. You're posting in this forum with a machine you don't need. Most modern societies are extremely wasteful - destroying resources for stuff we want, not what we need. We don't need automobiles. Not bad enough to destroy the environment in the process. You and everyone else in this forum is part of the problem - and all of us are in various countries around the world. This is not just a shortcoming of capitalism. Communism can be just as wasteful. It's really just a power shift. So, communism can be easier to influence the people, but can still be irresponsible. Yes capitalism is wasteful, because the people have not demanded otherwise. We love our little gadgets and we don't care who suffers so we can get them cheap. This will change and is changing, I believe, right now. Capitalism requires faith in people. That's hard to do. Much more attractive to just control the little ****ers. I think that's the attraction to communism. You prefer to control people and their lives. You are more comfortable forcing your ideas on everyone else rather than to pursuade their cooperation - which is required in a capitalist soceity. I also think you're painting a bleak picture out of paranoia. You really think oil is going to be our source of energy in 100 years? I think it will be eliminated from use entirely. And in the process, the lessons learned will stick with us. Capitalism, with it's harnessed greed, will develop these technologies. They're doing it right now. Why? Because consumers are demanding it. I put the blame where it resides - us. All of us. Wow, what a narrow minded view. To assume a higher intelligent form of life would have any need for these things. To assume the next intelligent life forms would even consider such shallow thinking as to use those elementary, archaic forms of energy. I'm not nearly so close minded as to presume such things.

No. I don't believe in shucking responsibility. We're there and need to finish. My comments are about after Iraq. It's also my preferred method of dealing with middle east ever since 9/11. The middle east deserves to be shunned. Let them prove some value and worth to the world before anyone associates themselves with them. Their governments say one thing - with their hands out - and their citizens say another. Then their governments lie and distort reality and their citizens become a pool to recruite resistance - resistance that has been "redirected" toward America. So, until they can get control of themselves and their government, we have no interest there. Kind of like doing business with a child...

Libertarian. Only because that's the closest established ideology to representing my views. Neither of the major parties embody this completely, so I'm constantly pissed at both of them. There are hardly any libertarians that get elected for anything. Never really thought about it but I think I'd still refer to them in the 3rd person. I don't know why. Maybe, deep down, I don't want to receive the same grief I give the others and so alienate myself from all of them...?

These interests need to be dissolved. Before WWII we were despised, characterized as spoiled and uninterested in what's going on in the world. Now that we care and are deeply involved - we are hated. I'll stick with despised, thank you. The world wants its cake and eat it too. They want us to care and get involved, but not expect anything in return. They want us to commit resources and trade, but not gain anything in return. They don't want a two way street - rather just want us to give. I say neither. The "evil rich" america should basically say - **** you then. We're not coming to your aid when you start having problems. We're not sending ships, food and medical aid when your country gets struck by a tsunami or an earthquake levels some city. Iran gets nukes? Good luck with that. Syria gets nukes? Good luck with that too. We have a defense system, so we really don't care. I'm just ready to put my money where their mouth is. I'd rather be isolationist anyway, so why not embrace it fully and let them get their wish? All of their arguments will fall to pieces - replaced by new ones no doubt, but they won't involve perceived imperialism. When they attack us, there will be no justifiable provocation. Unless ignoring someone is a justifiable provocation. I understand existing "agreements" so I would certainly prefer to do the bare minimum in compliance. We can still protect Israel long distance.

Well, perhaps I should have first asked what "very strong gun control" means. In my mind, your idea of gun control is not "very strong" at all. It's reasonable. I hear this alot. I'll happily take the chance. If some guy is opening fire in a crowded restaraunt trying to kill people - I'll be more than happy to see a 12 year old fire back at him. I'm sorry it's not ideal. I'm sorry there isn't a "perfectly trained" gun handler, privileged to the latest "procedures and flowcharts" in the restaraunt to neutralize the threat. But, I'll take what I can get - it's better than letting the murderer continue the assault. I think we underestimate each other too much. Yes, maybe they'll shoot some innocent person. But more than likely not. Yes, maybe they'll inflame the shooter and cause more death. But more than likely not. Do you really think more people would have died if someone fired back at the VT shooter? Columbine? The McDonald's massacre? The common citizen may not be trained in such things, but that doesn't mean they're going to make a complete mess of the situation. That's a bit too presumptuous in my opinion. Most people aren't that inept. I think we take that too far and short change ourselves - gloss over the pragmatic reality that a mass killing like this is a mess already. A situation like that is not perfect. The best solution will still result in death. It's worth it to take the chance. By trying to be too safe about who should conceal and carry and fight back, we could be losing a lot more lives being sure that the only person in the room with a gun is the dude that wants everyone dead.

I sincerely hope a pro-isolationist wins. I would like to see us rebuild Iraq and set things as right as we can, all things considered. Then I'd like to see us get out of that region of the world and let them fend for themselves.

Why would it come down to that? Freedom of speech could increase crime. Our civil liberties can increase crime. If we couldn't leave the house after 10:00 PM it would probably decrease crime, but that's mostly irrelevant isn't it? Oh yes, that minority of idiots should dictate what the majority is allowed to do now? This is a perfect example of tunnel vision. Where our only concern is that 10% and no consideration for the 90%. Isn't this the same as GWB's idea of battling terrorism that you go on about? Rather than hunt down and kill only terrorists, we invade with traditional armies and kill everything. Funny how you have no problem doing it with other policy. How about this: How about we think a little harder about how we can deal with that 10% without trampling all over the rights of the 90%? Surely we're smart enough - it's just a matter of laziness and no regard for others.

Where's your town? Murder capital of the world I'll bet. Funny how you can read and write and yet perpetuate ignorance proudly. You know that reading and writing isn't cool right? If your buddies find out, you might get stitches...

You know, that's true, yet our justification for invasion without UN consent was that we had a right to defend ourselves. That implies we did expect to be attacked.

No, it implies someone in school should carry them. So far, our schools are gun-free victim zones.

Actually, that would be an interesting development if it turned out that americans are depending more upon self defense rather than police defense. Maybe these shootings and terrorism actually validate the fact that the government can't protect you. The police are more of a discouragement and damage control entity. You'll have to be packin' to save yourself from an assault. The police will only rescue your dead body...